At 20:54 22/09/04 -0400, charles@w3.org wrote:
>Yep. I think some people have been around this wheel a few times. I am
>wondering if anyone has done a recent state of the art?
FWIW, I recently surveyed [1] papers from the last two iTrust [2]
conferences on Trust Management in Open Systems [3,4]. The data is still
very raw, basically N3, but the namespace prefixes and other header info
aren't defined yet, but may be of some interest. Currently, there is a
(quite low) level of semantic web awareness in this community, judging from
the papers alone.
[1] http://www.ninebynine.org/iTrust/iTrust-survey.n3
[2] http://www.itrust.uoc.gr/
[3] http://www.itrust.uoc.gr/conf2/
[4] http://www.trustmanagement.clrc.ac.uk/
The EU SECURE project [5] is also doing some very interesting work in this
space -- they have a framework that maps a very theoretical logical
framework to running code, all developed within the project.
[5] http://secure.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/
I hope to post some notes of my own about this work in the not-too-distant
future. I note they have also done some work on proof carrying assertions
#g
--
At 20:54 22/09/04 -0400, charles@w3.org wrote:
>Josh wrote
>
> > ...There are many types of
> > assurance -- some people might trust something based on the source
> > domain name, others might require a PGP signature, and so on. The level
> > of assurance you want depends on the nature of the data. Also, you can
> > imagine scenarios where the trust is much more transitive...
>
>
>Yep. I think some people have been around this wheel a few times. I am
>wondering if anyone has done a recent state of the art?
>
>I wrote a very brief presentation exploring some steps people have taken -
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/talks/0822-eze but it is in spanish.
>Roughly it looked at the idea that Annotea introduced some trust by having
>password control over who posted annotations, and keeping information
>about that, at EARL's notion that an assertion has to include who made it
>and when (in the context of conformance assertions - Josh's example of
>Microsoft commenting on an IBM product is exactly the use case) and at the
>fact that provenance tracking is clearly something that is seen as a need
>in any serious system designed for the open semantic web.
>
>I know there is other stuff done within W3C. I know of the mindswap stuff
>and Tom Croucher's interest there.
>
>Chris Bizer maintains a nice list of annotated pointers to interesting
>resources at http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/SWTSGuide/ and
>there are various bits of stuff around proposing how trust can be handled,
>or is handled.
>
>I'm wondering if anyone this year has tried to collect that information
>and turn it into a written "this is what people are doing or talking about
>at the moment". And in an ideal world, has done some comparison of the
>various benefits and trade-offs in the approaches and the implementations
>(an approach might be great for managing the information, but if nobody
>knows how to build an interface there is at the very least some more work
>to be done).
>
>cheers
>
>Chaals
------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact